Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,400+ case briefs...

Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters

United States Supreme Court
415 U.S. 423 (1974)


On May 15, 1970, Granny Goose Foods, Inc. and Sunshine Biscuits, Inc. (employers) (plaintiffs) filed suit in the Superior Court of California for the county of Alameda against the Brotherhood of Teamsters and its officers (union) (defendants). The suit alleged the union members were striking in violation of collective-bargaining agreements. The same day the suit was filed, the superior court issued an ex parte temporary restraining order enjoining all strike activity.. On May 19, 1970, the union removed the case to federal district court, because the action arose under the Labor Management Relations Act. On the same date, the union also filed a motion in the district court to dissolve the temporary restraining order. The district court denied the motion on June 4, 1970. The union resumed strike activities on November 30, 1970 after the employers refused to negotiate a new collective-bargaining agreement. The employers filed a motion in district court to hold the union in contempt for violating the state restraining order. The union countered that the restraining order had expired, and as such their activities were not in violation of the order. The district court rejected that argument, however, ruling that the earlier holding denying the motion to dissolve the order gave the order continuing force and effect, and that 28 U.S.C. § 1450 served to continue the restraining order until it was affirmatively dissolved or modified by the court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the temporary restraining order expired long before November 30, 1970, because under both § 527 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (F.R.C.P.) 65(b), the order expired no later than June 7, 1970, 20 days after it was issued. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Marshall, J.)

Concurrence (Rehnquist, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 496,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 496,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,400 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial